Chong Lee Yee, Head Karen, Webster Katie E, Daw Jessica, Strobel Natalie A, Richmond Peter C, Snelling Tom, Bhutta Mahmood F, Schilder Anne Gm, Brennan-Jones Christopher G
Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 9;6(6):CD013052. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013052.pub3.
BACKGROUND: Chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM), sometimes referred to as chronic otitis media (COM), is a chronic inflammation and often polymicrobial infection of the middle ear and mastoid cavity, characterised by ear discharge (otorrhoea) through a perforated tympanic membrane. The predominant symptoms of CSOM are ear discharge and hearing loss. Systemic antibiotics are commonly used to treat people with CSOM. This is the first update to the review published in 2021, and is one of a suite of seven Cochrane reviews evaluating the effects of non-surgical interventions for CSOM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics compared to placebo, no treatment, or another systemic antibiotic in people with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose, and Throat Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two clinical trials registers to 15 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing systemic antibiotics (oral, injection) to placebo/no treatment or other systemic antibiotics with at least a one-week follow-up period, involving people with chronic (at least two weeks) ear discharge of unknown cause or due to CSOM. Other treatments were allowed if both treatment and control arms received it. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: resolution of ear discharge or 'dry ear' (whether otoscopically confirmed or not, measured at between one week and up to two weeks, two weeks to up to four weeks, and after four weeks); health-related quality of life using a validated instrument; and ear pain (otalgia)/discomfort/local irritation. Secondary outcomes included hearing, serious complications, and ototoxicity measured in several ways. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This update found three new studies (390 participants). Overall, we included 21 studies (2525 participants). We report four core comparisons below, and describe an additional four in the Results section of the review. 1. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo It is very uncertain from a single study if there is a difference between systemic (intravenous) antibiotics and placebo in the resolution of ear discharge between one and two weeks (risk ratio (RR) 8.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88 to 38.21; 1 study, 33 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report results for resolution of ear discharge after two weeks, or health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain for hearing and serious (intracranial) complications. The study did not report ear pain and suspected ototoxicity. 2. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (both study arms received topical antibiotics) Seven studies assessed this comparison, with five presenting usable data. There may be little or no difference between oral ciprofloxacin and placebo/no treatment (with all participants receiving ciprofloxacin ear drops) in the resolution of ear discharge between one and two weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.17; I = 0%; 3 studies, 300 participants; low-certainty evidence), with similar results at two to four weeks. One study reported outcomes beyond four weeks, but the results were not usable. No studies reported health-related quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain for ear pain, serious complications, and suspected ototoxicity. 3. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (plus topical antibiotics and topical steroids in both study arms) Two studies used topical antibiotics plus topical steroids as background treatment in both arms. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in resolution of ear discharge between metronidazole and placebo at two to four weeks (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.65; 1 study, 30 participants). This study did not report other outcomes. It is also very uncertain if co-trimoxazole improved resolution of ear discharge after four weeks compared to placebo (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.16; 1 study, 98 participants; very low-certainty evidence). From the narrative reporting of one study, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for health-related quality of life, hearing, or serious complications (very low-certainty evidence). 4. Systemic antibiotics versus no treatment/placebo (plus topical antiseptics in both study arms) One study (136 participants) used topical antiseptics as background treatment in both arms, and found no difference in the resolution of ear discharge between the amoxicillin and no-treatment groups at three to four months (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.41; 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The narrative report indicated no evidence of differences in hearing or suspected ototoxicity (very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other outcomes. Limitations include heterogeneity in the duration and definition of CSOM used by studies included in the review. Although we planned subgroup analyses for different participant characteristics, treatment duration, and spectrum of antibiotic activity, we did not perform these analyses due to lack of available data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence available to determine whether systemic antibiotics are effective in achieving resolution of ear discharge in people with CSOM is limited. We are very uncertain if systemic antibiotics, when used alone (with or without aural toileting (ear cleaning)), are more effective than placebo or no treatment. When added to an intervention such as topical antibiotics, there may be little or no difference in resolution of ear discharge (very low-certainty evidence). Data were only available for certain classes of antibiotics; it is very uncertain whether one class of systemic antibiotic is more effective than another. Harmful effects of systemic antibiotics were poorly reported in the included studies.
背景:慢性化脓性中耳炎(CSOM),有时也称为慢性中耳炎(COM),是中耳和乳突腔的慢性炎症,通常为多微生物感染,其特征是通过鼓膜穿孔出现耳漏(耳溢液)。CSOM的主要症状是耳漏和听力损失。全身使用抗生素常用于治疗CSOM患者。这是对2021年发表的综述的首次更新,是评估CSOM非手术干预效果的七篇Cochrane综述之一。 目的:评估全身使用抗生素与安慰剂、不治疗或另一种全身使用抗生素相比,对慢性化脓性中耳炎(CSOM)患者的疗效。 检索方法:我们检索了Cochrane耳、鼻、喉注册库、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、其他四个数据库以及两个临床试验注册库,检索截止至2022年6月15日。 入选标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验,这些试验比较了全身使用抗生素(口服、注射)与安慰剂/不治疗或其他全身使用抗生素,随访期至少为一周,纳入的患者有慢性(至少两周)原因不明或因CSOM导致的耳漏。如果治疗组和对照组都接受了其他治疗,则允许使用。 数据收集与分析:我们采用标准的Cochrane方法。我们的主要结局指标为:耳漏消失或“干耳”(无论耳镜检查是否证实,在1周至2周之间测量、2周至4周之间测量以及4周后测量);使用经过验证的工具评估的健康相关生活质量;以及耳痛/不适/局部刺激。次要结局指标包括通过多种方式测量的听力、严重并发症和耳毒性。我们使用GRADE来评估每个结局指标证据的确定性。 主要结果:本次更新发现了三项新研究(390名参与者)。总体而言,我们纳入了21项研究(2525名参与者)。我们在下面报告四项核心比较,并在综述的结果部分描述另外四项。1. 全身使用抗生素与不治疗/安慰剂相比 从一项研究来看,在1至2周内全身(静脉注射)使用抗生素与安慰剂在耳漏消失方面是否存在差异非常不确定(风险比(RR)8.47,95%置信区间(CI)1.88至38.21;1项研究,33名参与者;极低确定性证据)。该研究未报告2周后耳漏消失的结果或健康相关生活质量。关于听力和严重(颅内)并发症的证据非常不确定。该研究未报告耳痛和疑似耳毒性。2. 全身使用抗生素与不治疗/安慰剂相比(两个研究组均接受局部使用抗生素) 七项研究评估了这一比较,其中五项提供了可用数据。在1至2周内,口服环丙沙星与安慰剂/不治疗(所有参与者均接受环丙沙星耳滴)在耳漏消失方面可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.05,95% CI 0.94至1.17;I² = 0%;3项研究,300名参与者;低确定性证据),在2至4周时结果相似。一项研究报告了4周后的结局,但结果不可用。没有研究报告健康相关生活质量。关于耳痛、严重并发症和疑似耳毒性的证据非常不确定。3. 全身使用抗生素与不治疗/安慰剂相比(两个研究组均加用局部使用抗生素和局部使用类固醇) 两项研究在两组中均使用局部使用抗生素加局部使用类固醇作为背景治疗。在2至4周时,甲硝唑与安慰剂在耳漏消失方面是否存在差异非常不确定(RR 0.91,95% CI 0.51至1.65;1项研究,30名参与者)。该研究未报告其他结局。与安慰剂相比,复方新诺明在4周后是否能改善耳漏消失也非常不确定(RR 1.54,95% CI 1.09至2.16;1项研究,98名参与者;极低确定性证据)。从一项研究的叙述性报告来看,在健康相关生活质量、听力或严重并发症方面,两组之间没有差异的证据(极低确定性证据)。4. 全身使用抗生素与不治疗/安慰剂相比(两个研究组均加用局部防腐剂) 一项研究(136名参与者)在两组中均使用局部防腐剂作为背景治疗,发现在3至4个月时,阿莫西林组与不治疗组在耳漏消失方面没有差异(RR 1.03,95% CI 0.75至1.41;136名参与者;极低确定性证据)。叙述性报告表明在听力或疑似耳毒性方面没有差异的证据(极低确定性证据)。该研究未报告其他结局。局限性包括纳入综述的研究中使用的CSOM的持续时间和定义存在异质性。尽管我们计划对不同参与者特征、治疗持续时间和抗生素活性谱进行亚组分析,但由于缺乏可用数据,我们未进行这些分析。 作者结论:现有证据有限,难以确定全身使用抗生素对CSOM患者实现耳漏消失是否有效。我们非常不确定全身使用抗生素单独使用(无论是否进行耳内冲洗(耳部清洁))是否比安慰剂或不治疗更有效。当添加到局部使用抗生素等干预措施中时,在耳漏消失方面可能几乎没有差异(极低确定性证据)。仅获得了某些类抗生素的数据;一类全身使用抗生素是否比另一类更有效非常不确定。纳入研究中对全身使用抗生素的有害影响报告不足。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-2-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-6-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016-4-26
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-1-9
Lancet. 2024-5-25
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2023-11
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-2-4
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-8-27
Glob Public Health. 2022-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-2-9
Can Fam Physician. 2020-9
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020-9-14